NOAA: “Arctic Report Card: Update for 2010”

With the message “The Arctic region continues to heat up” the Arctic Report Card: Update for 2010 was released by NOAA a few days ago. The NOAA home page has the headline: “Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely”.

The sections most relevant to the Arctic (strictly the Arctic Ocean) – Atmosphere, Ice-cover, and the Ocean itself are covered in p.6-26 however since the first report of its kind in 2006, the remit has become broader and now includes sections on Land (p.27-52), Greenland, and Biology (p.53-100), including Arctic Char, Goose Population, and Arctic Wildlife.

ATMOSPHERE

“The Arctic Report Card is a timely source for clear, reliable and concise environmental information on the state of the Arctic, relative to historical time series records”, proclaims NOAA (HERE), but the Report is of little help in this respect. Although the Arctic is an ocean, and the report has a section on Land, the section Atmosphere begins with the sentence: “The annual mean air temperature for 2009 over Arctic land areas was cooler than in recent years, although the average temperature for the last decade remained the warmest in the record beginning in 1900”. This is illustrated by Fig.A1 (mean 1961-90, CRUTEM 3v) that includes the North Atlantic from Latitude 60°N to 64°N, and the sea area from southern Greenland to Norway. Is that a “trick”? Comparing Figure 2 for the region north of 64°N it seems we are no warmer now (+1.5⁰C anomaly) than around 1938/39.

Figure A.1. Arctic-wide annual average surface air temperature anomalies relative to the 1961–90 mean, based on land stations north of 60°N from the CRUTEM 3v dataset, available online at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/ data/temperature/. Note this curve does not include marine observations.

Instead the Arctic Ocean temperature situation is presented by Figure (A3) , which indicates merely an increase in annual temperature anomaly in 2009 for about one-third of the ocean space in the Canadian Basin. A separate analysis for winter and summer would be needed anyhow, and this report could have covered Nov.2009 to April 2010 already at least (see Fig.3). Instead they talk globally:

Figure 3. GISS DJF 2009/10

“The first 7 months of 2010 achieved a record high level of global mean air temperature, but this could moderate for the rest of the year due to La Niña influences. The warmest temperature anomalies for the Arctic in the first half of 2010 were over north-eastern Canada”, which may be relevant for January to June temperature in NE Canada, but is of little concern to the Arctic Ocean.

However the report does describe an interesting phenomenon, described here in direct quotes:

“Winter 2009-2010 showed a major new connectivity between Arctic climate and mid-latitude severe weather, compared to the past.”

“…winds tend to blow from west to east, thus separating cold arctic air masses from the regions further south.” but “in December 2009 (Fig. A7b) and February 2010 (Fig. A7c) we actually had a reversal of this climate pattern, with higher heights and pressures over the Arctic that eliminated the normal west-to-east jet stream winds. This allowed cold air from the Arctic to penetrate all the way into Europe, eastern China, and Washington DC.”

“This change in wind directions is called the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents climate pattern and has happened previously only three times before in the last 160 years.”

The section concludes “While individual weather extreme events cannot be directly linked to larger scale climate changes, recent data analysis and modelling suggest a link between loss of sea ice and a shift to an increased impact from the Arctic on mid-latitude climate.”

Figure 4: Wind direction Great Britain 1939/40

Three times “in the last 160 years”! – yet the years are not mentioned, nor any historical context. Instead the section ends with the conclusion that:

“Models suggest that loss of sea ice in fall favors higher geopotential heights over the Arctic. With future loss of sea ice, such conditions as Winter 2009-2010 could happen more often. Thus we have a potential climate change paradox. Rather than a general warming everywhere, the loss of sea ice and a warmer Arctic can increase the impact of the Arctic on lower latitudes, bringing colder weather to southern locations.”

OCEAN & ICE

In the ocean section, the authors tend to focus on 2007 to 2009, not even mentioning the winter 2009/10, or any period or month in 2010. They report that summer sea surface temperatures fell over the period, and also discuss wind driven circulation and salinity. Astonishingly, this section (a two page long text of about 1300 words) required 15 authors from 8 institutions and 5 nations for its preparation.

The one text-page long section on sea ice cover starts with the remarkable sentence: “Sea ice extent is the primary parameter for summarizing the state of the Arctic sea ice cover.”, and regards as “Highlights” of 2010:

“September minimum sea ice extent is third lowest recorded.”

“Loss of thick multiyear ice in Beaufort Sea during summer.”

The main discussion is about the difference between 2007 and 2010, culminating in the information that:

“Winter 2010 was characterized by a very strong atmospheric circulation pattern that led to warmer than normal temperatures.”

“A strong atmospheric circulation pattern during winter 2010 kept most of the 2-3 year old ice in the central Arctic, and during June helped push the ice edge away from the coast.”

A post by one of the four authors, Dr. Walt Meier, at WUWT (21. Oct.): “Summer 2010 in the Arctic and other Sea Ice topics”, was more informative, i.e. mentioning the importance of bottom and lateral melt, which depends on the ocean temperatures.

WIND SHIFT

Figure 5. GISS DJF 1939/40

The report has some value, at least with a basic analysis and explanation concerning the phenomenal change of wind direction during winter 2009/2010. While it may be risky to guess about three events, I can bet on one without any hesitation, namely winter 1939/40, the first World War II winter, which has been a subject of considerable research for some time (http://climate-ocean.com/) (See Fig.5 (left)). At the end of the 1930s the NH temperature had been very high, but suddenly Europe was confronted with the coldest winter since the Little Ice Age. This included an interesting change in wind direction, for example in Great Britain (see Fig.4) during the winter seasons 1814, 1841, and 1939/40. One of the leading German meteorologists at the time, R. Scherhag explained the sudden change few years later:

“The temperature anomalies which were observed in the northern hemisphere in January 1940 can easily be explained by the occurrence of the pressure deviations.” (Richard Scherhag, 1951, “Die große Zirkulationsstörung im Jahr 1940”; Annalen der Meteorologie, Vol. 7-9, pp. 327-328). In the same way he tried to explain the Arctic warming (1919 to 1939) In the 1930s. C.E.P. Brooks (1938) felt it necessary to provide a reason: “Attributing the recent period of warm winters to an increase in the strength of the atmospheric circulation only pushes the problem one stage further back, for we should still have to account for the change of circulation.” (in: “The Warming Arctic”, The Meteorological Magazine, 1938, p.29-32.). And the answer regarding the change in circulation? It is the ocean that matters.

So here we are, 70 years later. NOAA presents a report with a fanfare, but there are few new facts, meagre explanations and claims that scare. No wonder – if we cannot explain the early Arctic warming since 1919, and the onset of the global cooling since Winter 1939/40, we are unlikely to explain convincingly the mechanisms that drive the conditions in the polar region today. The oceans should be the prime factor; instead the NOAA Report puts the atmosphere and sea ice cover first.

Post navigation

60 thoughts on “NOAA: “Arctic Report Card: Update for 2010””

I still believe the Danes since they actually measure their temperatures not model them. Whatever NOAA claim it will not change what actually happens so perhaps extra vigilance is required and real data sets.

That’s a pretty bold statement. Would they bet the farm on it? I mean I’d bet heavily that arctic sea ice won’t be greater than in 1975 in the next 5 years but I’d be increasingly gun shy about dates further than that into the future. If history repeats itself, and with climate it usually does, we should be entering or have already entered a 30-year period of arctic sea ice growth and twenty years from now the nattering nabobs of negativity and nervous Nellies will be worried about global cooling again.

I did a bit of rudimentary research into temperature records of weather stations in the Canadian North as background for a letter to a professional organization to which I belong. Results were interesting. I enclose a part of that letter below:

“In considering this letter, I prepared some temperature graphs using Environment Canada temperature data for a number of northern localities and I have attached those graphs for your consideration. In reviewing these data, one of the first things that struck me was the obvious fact that we actually have very few places in the north with long histories of weather data. Most go back at best to the 1980s and a 30-year time frame is simply too short to determine anything conclusive about long-term temperature change. However, we do have a few sites with temperature records going back to the early 1900s and even late 1800s and these are of some interest.

For example, the record for Fort Good Hope from 1908 suggests that there has been essentially no temperature increase since that time at that locality.
In Fort McPherson the record since 1892 shows a warming trend to about 1908 then virtually stable temperatures until about the mid-1980s after which the temperature rises.

Sites with records going to the 1930s and 1940s include
Cambridge Bay (cooler now than in 1929), Wrigley (cooler now than in 1943),
Coppermine/Kugluktuk (temperatures essentially stable from about 1940 until now with a suggestion that temperatures are falling over the past 10 years),
Yellowknife (temperatures essentially flat from 1942 through about 2000 and then some rise to 2007),
Resolute Bay (temperatures essentially unchanged since the mid-1940s).

Localities with records going back to the 1950s include Alert (gradual decline then rise in temperatures such that temperatures in 2006 were the same as in 1950) and Sachs Harbour (increasing temperatures 1955 to mid-1960s then very gradual increase followed by stable of lowering temperatures since about 2000).

An interesting locality is Iqaluit where records exist from 1946. One site shows temperatures falling steadily until the mid-1960s at which time temperatures rise significantly; however, a second recording site in Iqaluit shows stable to decreasing temperatures from 1997 through 2007.

In fact, the only locality that I could find showing a steady, long-term increase in temperature was Fort Liard. That site shows a slow, gradual increase in temperature from 1894 through 2010. Fort Liard is the anomaly that one might use to conclude that there is continual warming going on. But, of course, Fort Liard cannot explain all the flat or falling temperatures in other localities in the north over the past 50 to 100 years.

Finally, there is the chart from the Danish Meteorological Institute with satellite-measured temperatures in the polar regions (north of 80°N) showing steadily declining summer temperatures since 1958. How does that square with “global warming”?

Interesting comment by Ralph Bullis, but of course he’s been very foolish and only looked at raw data. That will never do; send all records immediately to GISS and they will be Hansenised to give correct trends.
BTW who is Arnd Bernaerts?

Exactly as I believe, wind patterns /~air circulation/ are making the European climate warm or cold. With north-east air flow, the winter is cold. With south-west air flow, it is cold. No greenhouse effect black-box pseudoexplanation is needed.
Concerning the Arctic itself, its temperature is driven by North Atlantic decadal variability. SST anomalies are driving the atmospheric heights and lows and causing warmer or colder than average air flow into the continents. North Atlantic has switched to the cold mode around 2005, despite recent warm AMO peak.

Interesting comment by Ralph Bullis, but of course he’s been very foolish and only looked at raw data. That will never do; send all records immediately to GISS and they will be Hansenised to give correct trends.
===========================Hansenised… Love it!!!

Unlikely, is it influence or proof. Does climate research have to lean to irreversible disaster for the entire earth.

I like Jimmy Stewart’s line in the movie No Highway in the Sky where he was talking about his metal fatigue theory, he hopes it might have some small contribution to science. And another one where he explains its not personal, he did not invent the mathematics used in his prediction. His character in the movie never caved on his integrity to science. And at the end of the movie, being vindicated he admitted his error in temperature in his calculation. Good choice of women in the movie too.

Mr. Bullis clearly does not understand the sophisticated statistical concepts that must be applied to aging temperature figures. Old figures tend to float upward with time and must be adjusted downward in order to restore proper perspective. New temperature figures sink before the ink is dry and must be adjusted upward for accurate restoration. Without an appreciation of these sophisticated statistical techniques (making extensive use of “new math”) the layman should not expect to see the evidence of AGW so plainly before us today.

Warning: The application of sophisticated statistical techniques will not affect how temperature may actually FEEL, so don’t put away your woollies!

So essentially we can’t go back to the average or mean of 1961 through 1990.

Now I know they’ve gone completely mental. I can understand why a lot of hippies want to go back to easier cheesier times of the 60’s. However, wouldn’t that cause a slight conundrum since the said reference is so much higher then, let see, oh I’ll just take a quick and wild stab in the dark here and say 1881-1910.

Essentially the conclusion then becomes them hippies really want to go back to the 60’s no matter the emission standards and, apparently, the obvious global warming that was going on back then–according to their data anyhow.

Is it just me, or does anyone else realize that if more thermal energy can migrate to the arctic in the winter when the pole is dark, that the rate of energy radiation to space goes up? Wouldn’t this increase the global rate of thermal energy loss to space?

The report card for NOAA, on the other hand, shows mostly D’s and F’s. Their return to actual science seems highly unlikely, though we should continue to monitor that situation closely for possible changes due to unknown parameters.

Regarding Mr. Claude Harvey’s tongue-in-cheek comment: “Mr. Bullis clearly does not understand the sophisticated statistical concepts that must be applied to aging temperature figures.”, I reply that one of my tasks as Chief Geologist at a major gold mining operation was to oversee and carry out complex statistical ore reserve models using 3D spatial relationships within a geological framework. So I do have a small inkling as to the workings of statistics. We were using kriging in reserve models before the GCM statisticians even knew who Krige was. I also know what can happen once numbers get massaged and faulty assumptions plugged into statistical models. Sometimes it’s like the guy with the bad checks says: “If this one bounces, bring it back and I’ll write you another one”. Cheers.

Let’s put the two key statements in this article in immediate succession.

1. “Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely”.

2. “This change in wind directions is called the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents climate pattern and has happened previously only three times before in the last 160 years.”

So…. the major wind pattern has JUST returned to conditions that have occurred 3 times in the last 160 years, but we should not expect previous conditions to return. Let’s go through that again. Something just happened that only happens once every 40 years or so over the last 160 years, but we shouldn’t expect anything else that has happened over the last 160 years to happen again. Let me try one more time. There’s this rare occurance that only happened 3 times before in the last 160 years, just happened again this year, but we shouldn’t expect that anything else that has happened over the last 160 years would also happen again.

Maybe I’m daft, but the more ways I word it the more it sounds like “just because the polar bear population has quadrupled doesn’t mean they aren’t going extinct”.

This post by Arnd Bernaerts is a bunch of nonsense. He is looking for anything that can sow doubt no matter how insignificant and inconsequential.

The first point that he makes, compares air temperature data from 60N-90N, up to 2010 from NOAA to data from 64N-90N from a Junkscience website which extends only to 2004. He points to the data Junkscience data and says,
“it seems we are no warmer now (+1.5⁰C anomaly) than around 1938/39.”
Why one would look at the older data, over a more limited region to look at the Arctic air temperatures, is not made clear, but it seems to the author more valid.
Clearly a lot of the temperature increase in the region is coming from the lower Arctic, and the full decade from 2000 to 2010 was very warm, but hey lets ignore that, because we want to show the Arctic region is not warming. This ruse should be transparent to any objective person.

Bernaert’s criticism of the ocean section of the report amounts to carping about how he would have done it differently and updated it to April 2010. Why should I care if the authors wanted to cover only 2009 and leave 2010 for another time? The NOAA report,http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/
has separate sections for Air temperatures and the Arctic Ocean. Why is that somehow wrong?

Bernaert finishes with this statement:The oceans should be the prime factor; instead the NOAA Report puts the atmosphere and sea ice cover first.
The oceans store most of the energy gained by the earth because of the energy imbalance between arriving and departing energy. More energy is arriving due to the loss in summer sea ice and the water in the top surface of the Arctic ocean is less salty than it used to be. The NOAA report does explain what has happened to the Arctic Ocean recently and their summary says:

“In 2009 the annual wind-driven Arctic Ocean circulation regime was cyclonic for the first time since 1997. This regime significantly influenced the characteristics of the sea ice cover and ocean: maximum upper ocean temperatures in summer 2009 continued to decline relative to the historical extreme warm conditions observed in summer 2007; surface-layer waters in the Arctic Ocean in 2009 remained much fresher than in the 1970s and were comparable to 2008 conditions; and the sea level along the Siberian coastline significantly decreased relative to 2008. An interesting change in ocean geochemistry was observed in the Canada Basin. The combination of an increase in the amount of melt water from the sea ice cover and CO2 uptake (acidification) in the ocean caused the surface waters of the Canada Basin to become corrosive to calcifying organisms.”

As detailed in the Report Card, a key reason why Arctic air temperatures have warmed in the fall and winter is because of greater sea ice loss during the summer melt season. Sea ice is white in color, and therefore it efficiently reflects incoming solar radiation, cooling the ocean and lower atmosphere. But when sea ice melts, the darker ocean waters are exposed to the sun, which boosts both water and air temperatures. This phenomenon is known as “Arctic amplification.”

The ensuing warming raises the height of atmospheric pressure surfaces (known to meteorologists as “geopotential heights”) over the North Pole. In fact, the report notes that the winter of 2009-2010 featured “one of the three largest Arctic high-pressure events since 1850.” The higher pressure surfaces are thought to change large-scale wind patterns and can lead to bouts of severe winter weather in the eastern United States and East Asia.

# (1) compares air temperature data from 60N-90N, up to 2010 from NOAA to data from 64N-90N
# (2) if the authors wanted to cover only 2009 and leave 2010

___(1) 60°N to 64°N is south of Iceland, with warm Atlantic war. Belongs Bergen/Norway to the Arctic? Here is a figure from “Jones et al dataset” 1880-2004, north of 70°N, http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/jones79_90n.jpg, which is a latitude south of the North Cap/Norway indicating even a less level of warming north of 70°N that 1939.

(2) The report’s title is: NOAA: “Arctic Report Card: Update for 2010”, emphasis: “Update for 2010”. The section ice-cover, for example, includes September 2010.

Why didn’t they use the mean from 1979-2000, aka the so called satellite reference?

I’m guessing even them hobnob hippies got the oddity of it all to have a reference so close to home and now even if it would’ve been the more proper one math and statistical wise. But hey only the evil troll are keeping accounts. :-()

Ralph, I’d also be interested in seeing your results in more detail. Perhaps you have the data sets available in some handy format.

I ask because I decided to look myself a little – I looked at the climate data for Cambridge Bay (it was the first one I happened to find at the website).

I took the latest five years (2005-2009) and the earliest 5 years — both in Jan & Jul and looked at the Jan & July mean temp. (Since the early data is spotty, I kept looking until I found 5 years where the data was available. That took from 1929-1939 for Jan and 1929-1940 for Jul.)

I found the January temperatures had WARMED by 1.0 C on average, and the July temperatures had COOLED by 0.25 C on average. This would seem to indicate a net WARMING, not cooling as you reported. I strongly suspect that with my limited sample, neither of these trends is statistically significant.

Of course this is just a small sample and just two months. Did you find a statistically significant trend in the data for these sites? Could you explain your methodology for testing the trends in temperatures?

“Models suggest that loss of sea ice in fall favors higher geopotential heights over the Arctic. With future loss of sea ice, such conditions as Winter 2009-2010 could happen more often. Thus we have a potential climate change paradox. Rather than a general warming everywhere, the loss of sea ice and a warmer Arctic can increase the impact of the Arctic on lower latitudes, bringing colder weather to southern locations.”

Models ALWAYS assume that melting and warming will continue ad infinitum, thus no other result can come out.
It’s Global Warming, more global warming, and any Global Cooling is a direct result of Global Warming.
Here’s a great Holiday tip: When the guests complain it’s getting cold, don’t turn up the heater, gosh no, because warming causes cooling. Just open the front door: cooling causes warming.

Is it just me, or does anyone else realize that if more thermal energy can migrate to the arctic in the winter when the pole is dark, that the rate of energy radiation to space goes up? Wouldn’t this increase the global rate of thermal energy loss to space?

Doesn’t have to be dark and is well known in principle but actual amount of heat pumped from tropics to pole via ocean and air currents is largely unknown and also what factors might change the rate of transfer. See for instance “oceanic conveyor belt”. It’s also largely unknown how much heat is transported from surface to altitude by convective cells. How much cooling is provided by clouds isn’t well known either. All these things largely unknown either can or do dwarf the climate changing potential of anthropogenic GHGs.

Time to start tying the climate academic’s publicly funded salaries and grants to the accuracy of their predictions.
Poor predictions, reduced salaries and grants.
Good accurate predictions, a rise in salaries with bonuses.
Just like people in real life and in the harsh business world have to accept if they want to make a living.
And no crap wanted or needed on academic freedoms and the rights to pursue one’s own interest, blah blah! particularly when it is totally at other’s expense.

In a cold hard light, climate scientists unlike many other branches of science, have added little to our society but they have been the cause of and have created very serious divisions and enormous and unnecessary strife and angst within our society that far outweighs any contributions that they may made to the advancement of our society and knowledge.
If all climate scientists just disappeared tomorrow, I doubt that within a couple of months, anybody would seriously miss them or perhaps even note their absence.

To Tom Folkerts: your sampling is probably of too short a duration to be very meaningful. I looked at the Environment Canada data for each year from 1929 through to 2007. I plotted monthly averages for all of the years for which data are available (there are some years, early on, when data were spotty). That said, it is clear from the data that the temps for years circa 1929 are very similar too, if not warmer than, 2007.For the data, try: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/monthlydata_e.html?timeframe=3&Prov=CA&StationID=1786&Year=2010&Month=10&Day=28
Look towards the bottom of the page, look at “Navigation Options” and click on “CSV”. That should give you the monthly raw data since 1929. Good luck!

# (1) compares air temperature data from 60N-90N, up to 2010 from NOAA to data from 64N-90N
# (2) if the authors wanted to cover only 2009 and leave 2010

___(1) 60°N to 64°N is south of Iceland, with warm Atlantic war. Belongs Bergen/Norway to the Arctic? Here is a figure from “Jones et al dataset” 1880-2004, north of 70°N, http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/jones79_90n.jpg, which is a latitude south of the North Cap/Norway indicating even a less level of warming north of 70°N that 1939.

(2) The report’s title is: NOAA: “Arctic Report Card: Update for 2010”, emphasis: “Update for 2010”. The section ice-cover, for example, includes September 2010.”

One part of my comment is that the 64-90N data on the graph that you quote, only goes to 2004. It isn’t only a difference between the latitude of 60 versus 64. If one looks at the GISS data for 64-90N on their web site, you see that 2005 has an anomaly of 2.14C and all the years since 2002 have anomalies that exceed the value of 1.38 given for 1938 except for 2004.

This shows that the recent warming has lasted far longer and exceeds the peak year of 1938. It seems to me that the data you are using is designed to deceive people and cloud the issue.

Since you portray yourself as such an expert, it makes me suspicious that you wouldn’t check the most recent data, since the topic of your post was the 2010 update, and you complained that some of the data only went as far as 2009. To me this seems an unlikely to be an oversight on your part. Could you explain why you did that.

Notice that 11 of the 12 months show a positive slope = warming. The statistical significance of many of the months is poor, but:
* the two month that are statistically significant show strong warming.
* the one month that shows cooling is the least statistically significant of all.
* having 11 of 12 show the same sign is itself statistically significant.

I then did a regression for the annual mean (averaging the mean temp for the 12 months). This was done only for 1948-2009 because years before then were missing data, so the annual mean is not valid.

Annual Mean = – 74.41 + 0.03026 YEAR_1 P = 0.000

Since 1948, the temp has been rising at 0.03 C/yr. The p value of 0.000 suggests that this upward slope is undeniable.

I also looked at Fort McPherson. Interestingly, the one month that showed a declining temperature was again August (but again, this was not statistically significant). The statistical significance tended to be a little better than for Cambridge Bay – perhaps because the record was longer.

There is one concern about the Fort McPherson data. One set of data runs through 1977. Then the station moved and data was available starting again in 1981. If the new station was in a warmer location (or the instrumentation was calibrated differently), this would artificially make the slope positive. I have no way of knowing these details.

# (3) “One part of my comment is that the 64-90N data on the graph that you quote, only goes to 2004”
# (4) “all the years since 2002 have anomalies that exceed the value of 1.38 given for 1938 except for 2004. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
# (5) “you complained that some of the data only went as far as 2009.

__(3) And you have not said what temperature data from the North Cape/Norway down to Bergen. Stockholm and Helsinki have to do with the Arctic. The Fig. 2 is based on Giss data, and surely as “correct” as the Report figure. See the significant differences to the corresponding figure in:
REPORT 2006 (which shows also a line based on 19 stations –red-): Figure 6: Arctic-wide and annual averaged surface air temperature anomalies (60◦–90◦N) over land for the 20th century based on the CRU TEM2V monthly data set. HERE http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/rich2952/rich2952.pdf

__(4) the link provided includes SST, while the Report Fig. A.1 expressly excludes SST (caption: “Not this curve does not include marine observation“). The Report is about the ARCTIC!

__(5) The report’s title is: NOAA: “Arctic Report Card: Update for 2010”, emphasis: “Update for 2010”. “FOR” means for 2010, and not 2009, for example. NOAA annonce that the year 2010 is analysed “relative to historical time series records”.
The Report says: “This change in wind directions is called the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents climate pattern and has happened previously only three times before in the last 160 years.” Three times “in the last 160 years”! – yet the years are not mentioned, nor any historical context. They know the years, and are not putting the three numbers in the report. Unbelievable. Here they could have shown that they are able to provide a historical context, and to inform the general public, and the scientific community timely? Do you know the years?

Ralph Bullis says: Oct. 29, 2010 at 6:49 am
“In fact, the only locality that I could find showing a steady, long-term increase in temperature was Fort Liard.”

That’s because no one has homogenized the date yet. In fact most of the world hasn’t homogenized the data yet and the US via Hansen has manipulated their tiny part of the world temperatures to affect the entire globe. What a bunch of silly gooses!

eadler says:
October 29, 2010 at 11:17 am
“This ruse should be transparent to any objective person.”

++++++++

Eadler, the ruse is transparent to this objective person. In fact several ruses one of which you cite:

“The combination of an increase in the amount of melt water from the sea ice cover and CO2 uptake (acidification) in the ocean caused the surface waters of the Canada Basin to become corrosive to calcifying organisms.”

What utter, total rubbish. The (very slight) CO2 uptake by the (slightly) fresher water but offset by a (slightly) higher temperature has (microscopically) lowered the pH of the water making it (microscopically) more neutral (not even a tiny bit acidic) and has absolutely nothing to do with ‘being corrosive to calcifying organisms’. Good heavens. did they skip Grade 9?

Your points are completely neutralised by repeating that bilge in your comment.

There’s more. The Arctic land temperatures (just taking measurements and not estimating them from faraway points) have, on balance, not meaningfully increase in a century and in fact, on average, might even be dropping. Well, if you live in the Arctic and the air temperatures over land are dropping, what is one to conclude? It is getting (slightly) colder. The land temperatures in the Antarctic are dropping too (slightly). There are a whole lot of reasons why sea ice ebbs and flows (literally).

When the ice melts and the sea temps rise because it picks up solar radiation more efficiently, it also radiates that heat into the sky more efficiently as soon as the sun sets. Note that we repeatedly are told how the heating increases, but not how the decrease that inevitably follows works more efficiently too. It is an auto-correction provided by the Heat God and was put there to neutralise the efforts of ‘tipping point people’.

Alarmism is characterised by repeating the parts about heating and avoiding objectivity in the presence of us, the observant, hence the pointlessness of the ruse.

__eadler says: October 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm
# (6) “One part of my comment is that the 64-90N data on the graph that you quote, only goes to 2004”

___(6) The Figure A.1 (above) of the Report 2010 is not only questionable with regard to the inclusion of latitude south of 64°N, but also with regard to the time span. The Report-Fig. A.1 actually cover only the time period from 1900-2007, and neither 2008, nor 2009! Why? To find out it is necessary to make a printout, and draw a line, and count he years from 2000 onwards.

Even not less telling is the already mentioned Figure from JONES (above, http://seatraining.net/2a_ArctWarm_Jone.htm ) calculating the Arctic temperature north of 70°C, which indicate an about 1°C higher temperature in 1939 than the one shown last, the year 2004 (or 2003?).
The Report Figure A.1 indicates that only since about 2000 the temperature was higher as around the year 1940, which actually means, that the inclusion of latitudes that belong not the Arctic, even in a wide sense, make a significant difference.

Is this a polite brush off or Dr. Judith Curry is indeed moving away from the consensus science?
From Climate etc. vukcevic | October 29, 2010 at 5:33 pmThe long term AMO follows the Arctic temperatures with approx 3+ years delay (time it takes for the Arctic ice to move from the Fram to Denmark Straits). On the other hand Arctic temperature closely correlates (R = 0.9434) to the average of the Arctic GMF

curryja | October 29, 2010 at 5:43 pm |ok, this is really interesting.

The Report Card for Greenland states: ‘Greenland climate in 2010 is marked by record-setting high air temperatures, ice loss by melting, and marine-terminating glacier area loss.’

but on further reading:
‘A combination of a warm and dry 2009-2010 winter and the very warm summer resulted in the highest melt rate since at least 1958’

and:

‘an area and duration of ice sheet melting that was above any previous year on record since at least 1978.’

Since at least 1958 and 1978? What kind of science is it that is concerned with ‘record-setting’ when the records are curtailed such that previous peaks in a cycle are not included? Most of the air temperature stations on Greenland do not have long records, and although NUUK shows a monthly record high in 2010, other stations close by do not. Also, why does the report not use Angmagsallik and Godthaab – both of which have very long records and are part of the GISS data base?

This report has the look of something aimed not at scientific interpretation among peers, but communication to the media and hype.

Vuk etc. says:
October 30, 2010 at 3:56 am
Is this a polite brush off or Dr. Judith Curry is indeed moving away from the consensus science?
From Climate etc.
vukcevic | October 29, 2010 at 5:33 pm
The long term AMO follows the Arctic temperatures with approx 3+ years delay (time it takes for the Arctic ice to move from the Fram to Denmark Straits). On the other hand Arctic temperature closely correlates (R = 0.9434) to the average of the Arctic GMF

Ice moved from the Fram to the Denmark strait in the last month, where does the 3 years come from?

ArndB says: October 30, 2010 at 3:19 am
# The Report-Fig. A.1 actually cover only the time period from 1900-2007, and neither 2008, nor 2009.

Correction: The Report Figure A1 includes the years 2008 and 2009. A comparison between the Figures A1 for 2008, 2009, and 2010, indicates that the temperature pick was in 2007, and that the temperatures decreased in a straight line during he last two years by 1°C. While I regret my previous remark in this respect.

Kindly note that the Section Atmosphere states (first paragraph): The annual mean air temperature for 2009 over Arctic land areas was cooler than in recent years, although the average temperature for the last decade remained the warmest in the record beginning in 1900 (Fig. A.1). Actually the temperature (2009) is lower as, at least, two time around the year 1940, the NOAA claims seem not be well founded, when said:
____Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely
____Record temperatures across Canadian Arctic and Greenland, a reduced summer sea ice cover, record snow cover decreases and links to some Northern Hemisphere weather support this conclusion.

“ArndB says: October 30, 2010 at 3:19 am
# The Report-Fig. A.1 actually cover only the time period from 1900-2007, and neither 2008, nor 2009.

Correction: The Report Figure A1 includes the years 2008 and 2009. A comparison between the Figures A1 for 2008, 2009, and 2010, indicates that the temperature pick was in 2007, and that the temperatures decreased in a straight line during he last two years by 1°C. While I regret my previous remark in this respect.

Kindly note that the Section Atmosphere states (first paragraph): The annual mean air temperature for 2009 over Arctic land areas was cooler than in recent years, although the average temperature for the last decade remained the warmest in the record beginning in 1900 (Fig. A.1). Actually the temperature (2009) is lower as, at least, two time around the year 1940, the NOAA claims seem not be well founded, when said:
____Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely
____Record temperatures across Canadian Arctic and Greenland, a reduced summer sea ice cover, record snow cover decreases and links to some Northern Hemisphere weather support this conclusion.

The 1 Deg. C decrease between 2007 and 2009 is actually within the noise that is present in the data, and does not indicate any trend at this point. The data around 1940 represents a maximum temperature prior to 2000. The average anomaly for the nine years 2001-2009 on the GISS record is 1.48C. The comparable period starting from 1937, the hottest 9 years in the 20th century, has an anomaly of
.89C.
What NOAA says is on target. The last 9 years have been in the Arctic have been 0.6
C hotter than the hottest period of the 20th century. We are not going back to the nominal temperatures we have seen in the 20th century given the conditions that they state.

And so it is. Of course your time slot being 1948 to 2009 begins at the tail end of a global cooling period (according to GISS and HadCrut) and ends at the end of a warming period (according to GISS and HadCrut). So if I accept your figures as 100% accurate, I conclude that the warming period had a slope of .o3 degrees per year. Throw in the 20 or 30 years of cooling before that via a guestimate based on the global record, and oops we’re down to between 0.0 and 0.1. Now that’s not really fair, so let’s go right back to the late 1800’s and do a guestimate based on the global record again and now we’re back up to .02 degrees per year. Of course we could go back even further to the MWP and guestimate from there and we’d wind up with -0.2 degrees per year. I know, I know, they say the MWP was a local event confined to Europe, and these are temperature records from North America. Wait… what was that article I just read in a newspaper… Oh yeah… some receding ice in Canada’s far north has exposed primitive hunting sites that were clearly in use before being covered with ice, the tools and weapons left behind are being dated but intitial estimates are… well lookey thar. MWP. Then there was that tree ring study of ancient oak trees in the Red River Valley in Canada and lookey thar. MWP.

“..OTTAWA: Melting ice in Canada’s far north has revealed a treasure trove of ancient tools used to hunt caribou and other prey, researchers said.
High in the Yukon’s Mackenzie Mountains, Canadian archaeologists have discovered 2,400-year-old spear-throwing tools, a 1,000-year-old ground squirrel snare and bows and arrows dating back 850 years….”

The advance of glaciers in the period AD 1300-1900 is
well documented in the northern hemisphere (Grove,
2001), and in Greenland many glaciers reached a maximum
with marked terminal moraines around 1870-1900
(Weidick, 1984; Christiansen et al., 1999). Towards the
end of the Medieval Warm Period snow cover was increasing
in West Greenland as witnessed by mosses dating
between AD 1290 and 1400 from cairns melting out
of perennial snow patches (Weidick et al., 1992). On
Svalbard, frozen samples of soil and vegetation have been
found below Longyearbreen about 2 km from the present
margin and 30-35 m below the present glacier surface.
14C-dating indicates that the site was overrun by the glacier
about 1100 years ago, and that the site before that was
ice-free for at least 800 years (Humlum et al., 2005).

Reply to Tim Folkerts: glad you could locate and retrieve the data. I don’t mean to imply that there is no warming going on. However, at the weather stations where data exist, there appears to be a variation in warming throughout the north, even to the point of apparently cooling over decades of data. For Cambridge Bay, my initial comment stands – it is cooler now (marginally) than in 1926. In fairlness, we have only incomplete records for 1926. For the first full year of temperature data, 1940, the average annual temperature was -12.6. For 2009, the last complete year of data, the annual average temperature was -13.2. For both years, the average annual mean minimums were -16.6 and -16.4 respectively. For both years, the average annual mean maximums were -8.6 and -9.9 respectively. Fairly straight forward.

Sorry about the perspective, but I can’t take much responsibility for that. I simply took all the available data. What the temperatures may have been like there before (or what they might be like in the future) I really can’t say.

As Sherlock Holmes said in “A Scandal in Bohemia”“I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

Tim Folkerts;
Sorry about the perspective, but I can’t take much responsibility for that.>>

Sure you can. Per your quote of Sherlock Holmes, itz an offense to theorize without data. You limited your perspective to the available temperature record, and posted your calculation of 0.03 degrees warming per year, along with the statement that the upward trend was, QUOTE, “UNDENIABLE”.

If you are going to post hard numbers and describe the results as undeniable, then you have taken responsibility for them, you can’t just shrug your shoulders and mumble something about that’s all the temperature record there was so what else could I do. That makes your numbers and conclusions either incompetant, or deliberately designed to be misleading. In addition to the temperature record for that specific station, a fair analysis would have included notes to the effect that:

1. Single station variability is far higher the regional or global variability, so the results should be regarded as having a large error range in regard to any interpretation regarding global trends.
2. The reporting period is too short to establish a long term trend from a climate perspective.
3. The reporting period coincides with the end of a cooling period in the global record at onset, and finishes at the end of a global warming cycle that is leveling off, suggesting that the data is not representative of the entire climate cycle, only a short term portion of it heavily weighted to warming.
4. Not all data must come from the temperature record. As I pointed out and a subsequent commenter did again in detail, the region has receding glaciers that have exposed evidence of human habitation dating back hundreds of years. As humans would be unlikely to build a camp right at the edge of the glacier, it stands to reason that at the time the campe was actively used, the glacier had receded even more than it is now. This in turn suggests that temperatures centuries ago, uninfluenced by industrial emissions of CO2 were at least as warm as they are now, and likely warmer, and further that a cooling period then ensued, followed by the current warming cycle.

While the above is insufficient to calculate a degrees per year trend to three decimal places, it does suggest that the historical record included and interpreted in the context of the available information leads to the only possible conclusion which is that the over all trend is flat at best and most likely negative. It further raises one other important issue, which is that the climate is clearly cyclical, and as a consequence assigning a linear value to the trend established from any given data, no matter how long, is in fact nvalid.

So take responsibility for what you said either by retracting it, or providing supporting evidence that credibly supports it. I’ll judge you by your actions.

For Cambridge Bay, my initial comment stands – it is cooler now (marginally) than in 1926. In fairness, we have only incomplete records for 1926. For the first full year of temperature data, 1940, the average annual temperature was -12.6. For 2009, the last complete year of data, the annual average temperature was -13.2.

Yes, if you look at only two years – 1940 and 2009 – then 1940 was warmer than 2009. But as we know, such a small data set really tells us nothing. (In fact, you had earlier questioned my results when I *only* include 5 years at the beginning and 5 years at the end.)

The simple truth is that 1940 was an anomalously warm year for that era — there is no year that warm again until the infamously warm 1998. The regression analysis takes into account every year, and it clearly shows an increasing trend.

Also, I disagree that 1929 was warmer than “now”. 1929 had only 7 month of data: Jan – Jul. The mean temperature for those 7 months was -16.83 C. The mean value for those same 7 months in 2009 was -16.31 C –> 0.52 C warmer now. 2008 was slightly cool than 1929, but 2007 was much warmer.

(And here is one partial result that is interesting — the data for 2010 is only available thru May, but currently 2010 is THE WARMEST Jan-May period of any year in the record for Cambridge Bay! This suggest 2010 will be an exceptionally warm year there. Those 5 months are 4.7 C warmer than the same months in 1929! )

I recognize there are major limitations in my analysis (but I don’t think it is as major as you make it out to be).

How about I sharpen my statement: It is undeniable that – based on official Canadian weather records published on the internet – mean temperatures for Cambridge Bay from 1948 to 2009 show a highly statistically significant upward trend of 0.03 C/yr. Furthermore, from 1929 to 2009, the monthly slopes show a statistically significant upward slops of approximately 0.016 C/yr. I think that should address most of your concerns.

“1. Single station variability is far higher the regional or global variability”
Quite true. However, it had been claimed that this specific station over era when it was operating showed cooling. I was testing that one hypothesis. It would be great to check ALL the stations and see what the trends are. But I have a full time job and a family, so I don’t have time for every fun project that comes along.

“2. The reporting period is too short to establish a long term trend from a climate perspective.”
Also quite true. I don’t think I ever claimed anything beyond an undeniable rise from 1940 to 2009. I made no extrapolations.

“3. The reporting period coincides with the end of a cooling period in the global record at onset”
1940 coincides with the end of a WARMING period. The period in question includes a slight cooling period (~1940 – ~1965) and a stronger warming period (~1965 – present).

“4. …receding glaciers that have exposed evidence of human habitation dating back hundreds of years. As humans would be unlikely to build a camp right at the edge of the glacier …”
This was fascinating, so I looked for more info. I found this in an article: “For millennia, caribou seeking relief from summer heat and insects have made their way to ice patches where they bed down until cooler temperatures prevail. Hunters noticed caribou were, in effect, marooned on these ice islands and took advantage.” So apparently, not only were the hunters at the edges of icy areas, they were out on patches of ice that remained even in the summer.
The article also stated that the artifacts dated back anywhere from 850 yr to 4300 yr, so clearly they are not all from the MWP.
Again, I am only going by the evidence I have (the articles I found). I’m sure it is not all this simple, but again that is what I found in my limited search. I’d love to hear what you know about the topic to learn more.

“… assigning a linear value to the trend established from any given data, no matter how long, is in fact nvalid.”

I would agree that EXTRAPOLATING a linear trend indefinitely is indeed quite invalid. Clearly no linear climate trend can continue indefinitely. But simply assigning a linear value to a specific set of data is perfectly reasonable (especially when the data does not show any clear variations from linearity.)

Phil. says: October 30, 2010 at 5:53 am Ice moved from the Fram to the Denmark strait in the last month, where does the 3 years come from? Lapsus linguae, should be Arctic seas to the Fram Strait. it has been corrected. See details and reference in: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm

Tim Folkert
Getting better. Couple of details I could quibble with, but minor. Point is that alarmists constantly quote figures like yours and imply invalid conclusions from them. Presented as yours were, with no caveats, that’s what they sounded like, a mathematical result that implies a larger context for which it is not valid.

I don’t know which article you read re receding glaciers exposing evidence of human habitation. When these discoveries from receding glaciers first started happenning they were news. Now they’re back page. I recall discussion of caribou being stranded on ice islands (which none the less show it was as warm or warmer than it is now) but the more interesting one had to do with a cliff side over which game had clearly been stampeded. The glacier would have had to recede some distance to make that strategy work, and the weapons and tools at the bottom were from more than one era, showing the site had been used and abandoned and used again. Also, the weapons were seriously primitive stuff, point being that a guy with a pointy stick versus a caribou is a real short bout that doesn’t end well for the guy with the pointy stick. As for Caribou marooned on an ice island… well how freakin tall would the ice island have to be that a caribou couldn’t jump off? The caribou seek ice patches to bed down on to escape insects and heat, but we’re talking patches of snow and ice from the previous winter and we’re talking left over patches from a glacier perhaps, but in any event its not like the caribou lay down on the ice for the whole summer. They daily have to forage for food so how they would get far enough from the edge they just climbed up to be marooned the next day is beyond me. Oh wait. Caribou can’t climb. OK walked up.

To Tim Folkerts: thanks for the interesting discussion. Yes, I agree that one cannot take any single year of data and use that to demonstrate anything conclusive. So it will be interesting to hear what is made of 2010’s single year of data. In my last post, I did mention that 1940 was the first full year of data for Cambridge Bay, but looking at the ten years commencing with 1940, I would disagree that 1940 stands out. In fact there appears to be a down-trend in temperature that starts with the 1929 data year and continues through to the early ’50s. That period is followed by a warming trend through to about 2000 at which point temperatures stabilize through 2009. This would be in line with the observation that, globally, temperatures have stabilized or decreased slightly over the past 10 years or so. This next comment is anecdotal, I realize, but the last time I visited Cambridge Bay, in late June of 2009, my friends and I flew our small planes over Bathurst Inlet and the Coronation Gulf and saw that no leads had opened at all. Those bodies of water were solid ice from shore to shore. We were told in Cambridge Bay that they had experienced there one of the worst early winters and the latest spring in memory. But we know that memories can be selective.